https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447713 The ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding cash deposits during demonetization. The court held that trade advances for jewellery sales cannot be examined under Section 68 as they were subsequently converted to sales and properly recorded. The assessee satisfactorily discharged its burden by providing customer names and addresses, with no requirement for PAN details below Rs. 2 lakhs per Rule 114B. The AO erroneously rejected legitimate sales backed by corresponding purchases and stock. The cash deposits were adequately explained through bank statements showing sufficient prior withdrawals from the same accounts, with cash balances exceeding deposited amounts. The addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE was deleted. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2026 17:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447713 The ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding cash deposits during demonetization. The court held that trade advances for jewellery sales cannot be examined under Section 68 as they were subsequently converted to sales and properly recorded. The assessee satisfactorily discharged its burden by providing customer names and addresses, with no requirement for PAN details below Rs. 2 lakhs per Rule 114B. The AO erroneously rejected legitimate sales backed by corresponding purchases and stock. The cash deposits were adequately explained through bank statements showing sufficient prior withdrawals from the same accounts, with cash balances exceeding deposited amounts. The addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447713